Evaluate Rachel's Arguments Against Cultural Relativism

PHIL1001 ESSAY
Evaluate Rachel's arguments against cultural relativism. Is he right to endorse objective moral realism?

DINH NAM TRAN
308213904

Cultural relativism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Is the thesis that a person’s culture strongly influences her modes of perception and thought” Most cultural relativists add to this definition saying that there is no standard of morality. This means that morality is relative to the particular society that one lives in. Prominent ethicist James Rachels has written against this view in his work titled The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. This paper will be focused on evaluating Rachels’ critique of cultural relativism, and whether it was right for him to endorse objective moral realism. Rachels defines this as “a standard that might be reasonably used in thinking about any social practice whatever. We may ask whether the practice promotes or hinders the welfare of people whose lives are affected by it.” That is the moral worth of an action is based upon how it contributes to the society from which it operates in. Rachels is in agreement with cultural relativist in recognizing that we should keep an open minded approach when making ethical judgments about other societies. His thoughts differ from cultural relativist in that he believes that there exist objective moral standards. He puts forward this motion well on two fronts: first, he presents a major flaw in the way that cultural relativist think; second, he puts forward three arguments that support objective moral standards. Rachels begins his critique of cultural relativism through what he calls the “Cultural Differences Argument”. This is the primary premise from which cultural relativist employ when defending their position. The argument summarized by Rachel as: 1. Different cultures have different moral codes.

2. Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture. Rachels counters this thought very effectively and argues that “even if the premise is true, the conclusion might still be false.” Rachels is making the point that regardless of difference in belief between societies, it is the conclusion that really matters. It is about what really is factual. Rachels further illustrates his point here with a simple yet strong example: In some societies, people believe that the earth is flat. In other societies, such as our own, people believe that the earth is round. Rachels engages the reader to ask themselves, does this mean that there are no objective truths? Like Rachels, my answer to this would be an irrefutable no. Different societies have different perceptions on the shape of the earth, but this does not mean neither view is correct. We know undoubtedly that the earth is round, even though some people would think otherwise. The fact that societies disagree, does not mean that there is no correct answer in the above example, similarly this does not mean that there is no right and wrong in regards to the nature of morality. Rachels presents a well-designed argument against the “Cultural Differences Argument” that is central to cultural relativism. But he goes on further to say that this alone is not enough to disprove cultural relativism. Rachels proceeds to strengthen his argument against cultural relativism, and also now unknowingly strengthens his argument for his own view of objective moral realism. He does this by providing three logical consequences of cultural relativism, which brings about the downfall of cultural relativism. Rachels starts with a strong first argument of logical consequence, saying if cultural relativism were true then “we could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own.” This is yet another important cog of the cultural relativist movement. But Rachels shows the invalidity of this idea stating that it works well with small...

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...Maria K.
Philosophy
Mar. 6, 2012
ArgumentsAgainst Moral Relativism
Moral relativism is the belief that the morally correct decision to make, when faced with a moral dilemma, is the one that is acceptable within the context of a given culture. This means that the correct decision varies depending on the culture in which one makes it. Today, with great variability between societies and cultures, moral relativism is greatly accepted as a matter-of-fact, but this is not necessarily the case. Relativism between different cultures is not truly possible because of the foundational common beliefs that all human beings share.
In today’s western culture, it has become imperative that we be politically correct and culturally sensitive when talking about other cultures so as to avoid offending their practices and beliefs. This is the reason why moral relativism has been widely accepted by many, but, with further analysis, one discovers that this is not true. In an accepting society, many gaps are left when issues between cultures arise. These issues are not necessarily evident in common, everyday situations, but in extreme situations, these issues become clearer. For example, one country lives according to their morals, aiming to be kind, civil, and non-violent. A neighboring country’s morals differ greatly, and they are barbaric and violent, and decide to conquer their...

...CulturalRelativism: A Moral Fallacy
CulturalRelativism is the theory that all belief's are equally valid and that truth itself is relative, depending on the situation, environment and individual. Those who hold the belief of Cultural Relativist, hold that all beliefs are completely relative to the individual within a cultural identity. In this essay, I will show that culturalrelativism is unreliable as an ethical theory by showing the irrationality of the arguments that support it.
The key to understanding morality for Cultural Relativist, is to simply say that different cultures have different moral codes (Ethics 652). There are no universal truths in their mind. They believe that there are different customs in every society and cannot be deemed whether they are right or wrong. For example, the female infanticide which is as old as many cultures, remains a critical concern for Americans today. This phenomenon is practiced in China and India. The Chinese and Indian society do not view this practice as wrong or morally incorrect. Cultural Relativist believe that we as Americans should not judge there practices, because they are only relative to there culture. In CulturalRelativism there are no independent standards of what is right and wrong. Every standard is relative to its...

...CulturalRelativism
Introduction
According to www.gotquestions.org/cultural-relavitsim, culturalrelativism is the view that all beliefs, customs, and ethics are related to the social norms and culture that one comes from. In other words, right and wrong or good and bad are culture-specific, meaning that what is reflected moral in one society may be reflected immoral in another. Therefore, since no collective standard of morality subsists, no one has the right to judge another society’s customs or to hold one society as better than the other. Ethical relativism is closely related to culturalrelativism in that ethical relativism views truth as capricious and not absolute. What establishes rights and wrongs is determined merely by the individual or by humanity. Truth is not objective, henceforth there can be no objective standard which applies to all cultures. It is a matter of personal opinion of what is right and wrong or good and bad, so no society can pass judgment on another society.
For CulturalRelativismCulturalrelativism sees nothing essentially wrong (and nothing essentially good) with any cultural expression (www.gotquestions.org); this lack of official superiority or inferiority between cultures indicates a very positive result—little to no disputes. This leads...

...﻿Nathan Whittingham
Professor Mariana
Philosophy 120
12 October 2014
The Fallacy of CulturalRelativism
The diversity of beliefs and ways of life is a conspicuous phenomenon that occurs within the human race. For example, what Satanists find right and reasonable is damnable to Christians, and vice-versa. Additionally, the ancient Aztecs practiced human sacrifice for reasons that today, we find totally illogical. And just as we, in America, now look back upon our history regarding slavery with a feeling of abhorrence, there is no doubt that future generations will be similarly perplexed and repulsed by some of our modern day practices and rituals. For these exact reasons, it is simple for a common person to fallaciously infer that there is no objective truth— one may be inclined to believe that all truths are relative to the respective individual. In Philosophy, this theory is called “Relativism.” Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid, and that truth is relative to the individual. Relativism claims that there is no universal law or objective truth to which we all must adhere. In contemporary philosophy, the most widely discussed form of relativism is moral relativism, which has two distinct parts: individual relativism and culturalrelativism, (which will be the main focus of this...

...|Cultural Moral Relativism. Do We All Agree? |
|Essay #1 Pratheep |
|Sivabaalan 100266114 |
|11/18/2009 |
|James Connelly |
I find Rachel’sargumentsagainst the view of Cultural Moral Relativism persuasive and very convincing. Believers of CulturalRelativism have influenced the notion that cultural moral codes are culture bound. After explicating and assessing CulturalRelativism views and Rachels arguments, it is clear that there are discrepancies and inconsistencies in the views that favor CulturalRelativism. Rachels introduces a number of considerations that reject CulturalRelativism.
CulturalRelativism tells us that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics, and what does exist is the customs of different societies. Furthermore, we cannot judge a custom of another society or our own as right or wrong. CulturalRelativism simplifies its facts by employing an argument, known as the ‘Cultural Differences’ argument.
1) Different cultures...

...Culturalrelativism is the view that all beliefs, customs, and ethics are relative to the individual within his own social context. In other words, “right” and “wrong” are culture-specific; what is considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in another, and, since no universal standard of morality exists, no one has the right to judge another society’s customs.
Culturalrelativism is widely accepted in modern anthropology. Cultural relativists believe that all cultures are worthy in their own right and are of equal value. Diversity of cultures, even those with conflicting moral beliefs, is not to be considered in terms of right and wrong or good and bad. Today’s anthropologist considers all cultures to be equally legitimate expressions of human existence, to be studied from a purely neutral perspective.
Culturalrelativism is closely related to ethical relativism, which views truth as variable and not absolute. What constitutes right and wrong is determined solely by the individual or by society. Since truth is not objective, there can be no objective standard which applies to all cultures. No one can say if someone else is right or wrong; it is a matter of personal opinion, and no society can pass judgment on another society.
Culturalrelativism sees nothing inherently wrong (and nothing inherently good) with...

...Ruth Villagra
The Cultural Differences Argument for Moral Relativism.
Moral Relativism is generally used to describe the differences among various cultures that influence their morality and ethics. According to James Rachels, because of moral relativism there typically is no right and wrong and briefly states : “Different cultures have different moral codes.” (Rachels, 18) Various cultures perceive right and wrong differently. What is considered right in one society could be considered wrong in another, but altogether all cultures have some values in common.
In Elements of Moral Philosophy, the author gives examples of such. For instance, a tribe of Indians known as Callatians ate bodies of their dead fathers; the Greeks turned to cremation. Both societies believed each of their own to be the correct way to dispose of the dead. When they were both asked if one would do what the other practices, they both thought the opposite custom was dreadful. Another different culture that is mentioned is that of the Eskimos. They would offer their wives to their guests as a form of hospitality. In addition, they practice infanticide, killing of children at birth, especially females, in order to reduce the burden on the family living under their harsh circumstances. In our society, this goes against our marriage and sexual practices- and killing of babies is seen as completely immoral and even...

...Assess Rachels’ critique of the main argument for normative culturalrelativism
(NCR), i.e., the Cultural Differences Argument. How might a proponent of NCR
respond to Rachels critique? Is the response effective? Why or why not?
In this essay, I will discuss James Rachels’ article “The Challenge of CulturalRelativism”, in which he criticizes the normative culturalrelativismargument which is about how different cultures have different moral codes, thus there is no single truth to define “truth” or a correct set of moral codes because the idea of right or wrong varies within cultures. Firstly I am going to explain what the culturalrelativismargument is about and then present my assessment of Rachels’ critique regarding this argument from careful analysis of the argument. Through this assessment I will demonstrate the possible response of a proponent of the NCR argument in regards to Rachels’ critique. In conclusion, I will evaluate both perspectives to present my own assessment of the response.
The CulturalRelativismargument is associated with the idea of a general tolerance and respect for difference, which refers to the idea that...